Is it right that some must sell their homes to pay care home costs?

I am not against the house being sold to pay for care but I do not believe it should be done in that person's lifetime against their will. We should all be allowed hope, take it away and you take away the will to live. Consideration should also be given to a relative who has acted as a carer and lived at home.

Of course, the individual can consider their carer and make provision for them.

In terms of when a house should be sold, surely there needs to be some balance between retaining home of a return home for an older person and not allowing a property to sit empty (and deteriorating) indefinitely? Perhaps the current 12 week period should be longer, but I'm not sure that having *a* definite period is necessarily a bad or cruel thing to do.

TBagpuss wrote: »

Of course, the individual can consider their carer and make provision for them.

In terms of when a house should be sold, surely there needs to be some balance between retaining home of a return home for an older person and not allowing a property to sit empty (and deteriorating) indefinitely? Perhaps the current 12 week period should be longer, but I'm not sure that having *a* definite period is necessarily a bad or cruel thing to do.

Lets be clear here, if a local authority has funded a 12 week disregard and the resident has been in the home for 12 weeks they won't be returning home. There is no need to keep it for that reason.

pippinpuss wrote: »

I have worked all my life & have paid NI contributions to pay for my care, if needed. I have paid for my home, saved my money wisely. Gone without many luxuries. (new cars, holidays, bigger house)
Why should people who have squandered their money be entitled to 'free' care when I would be expected to pay.

Once again, the assumption that poor people "squander" their money. Perhaps it's more of an issue that many people just don't have the money to squander in the first place. My OH works, I raise the kids, I hope one day to have a career, but that affords us few luxuries. We may never be able to afford a mortgage, so if anything is squandered it is the rent, which I'll probably have to pay all my days anyway. We certainly don't spend frivolously.

In a capitalist society such as the UK, the "rich" will benefit most of time. The "rich" want it all. The right to earn lots of money, save it all up and buy a pile of bricks with it. To then pass it on to kids who may not be prepared to look after them in old age. Therefore, they want the state to pay for their care despite them having had the choice all those years what to do with their money. There's far more people in the UK who don't have this luxury, and that's what NI contributions are for. To ensure that poor people don't die all over the streets.

My kids probably won't have anything to inherit, but I think it's silly to expect any sort of inheritance from parents. If the kids want the house, then either they can care for their aging parents and have their inheritance, or give it up and pass the responsibility onto someone else.
It is necessary for the taxpayer to fund people who cannot afford their care, but not necessary for the taxpayer to pay for the inheritance of the more affluent families!